4 ms·
Problem is that both sides see the other as exactly this. I’m sure I can argue the point on behalf of either side selected by a coin toss. In today’s example th
by aksss 6y ago
Problem is that both sides see the other as exactly this. I’m sure I can argue the point on behalf of either side selected by a coin toss. In today’s example though we have the side that dominates academia, media, big labor, healthcare, public sector workers, and big tech using that dominance to censor a story harmful to their candidate with very disingenuous reasoning.
- iaw 6y agoOnly one side has come up with 'alternative facts' and argued that conclusive science is 'still out'. I've seen hypocrisy on both sides for sure but the intellectual dishonesty is only coming from one.
- aksss 6y agoI know a dozen people who would agree with you and thirteen who would argue the opposite and cite sources. You might not be as objective as you think here.
- jahaja 6y agoWhat's even the point of this "one should be more balanced, both sides!" etc etc. From my EU/Nordic perspective the US right-wing are more or less "crazy-right" (I mean just look at the Trump administration?!). I can't see why one should need to be somewhere in-between just because there are two parties.
- rayiner 6y agoThe whole Extinction Revolution stuff?
- esarbe 6y agoNa, they are actually based in reality. We're killing our own biological support system. Sad, sorry, and true facts.